America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Well, the dems kep the Senate, repubs got the house. Every candidate that was closely aligned with Sarah Palin went on to defeat- Fiorna, Whitman, Miller, O'Donnel and Angle. Candidates that distanced themselves from the tea party or at least did thier best to not make any unscripted public appearences (Rand Paul in this case)

So, given the history of mid-term elections, is this business as usual for a mid-term or a revolution the right wing predicted, or even a mandate?

This is my district and you can firmly blame Democrats for this one. New York has a closed primary system, so this is the guy the Democrats in this district wanted - in the primary, he got twice the number of votes of his nearest competitor. I actually didn't vote on this position. I tried to find something in the opposition I could support, but the Republicans didn't have a good choice and the other guy was a member of the Independence party and seemed sketchy.

No, there is still the filibuster. Republicans set the precedent, and now they will have to live with it. Nothing the House passes will get through the Senate without a 60-vote ultra super majority. The convincing has now gone to the R side, and they are way out of practice.

I wouldn't be so sure. You think Harry Reid and other who had an election scare won't be mindful of that fact? There's a good chance that some of them will vote along with certain things the Republican House proposes, or at the very least engages with them to craft a compromise bill. Besides, fillibusters are more of a Senate thing, not the House...and the Dems control the Senate still, so who exactly would they be fillibustering?

QUOTE

This could mean a tax hike for the middle class. Thanks Rs, we all needed that badly. We also know that the inability of the Rs to compromise has led us to this situation. On the positive side, the tax hike will help reduce the deficit. Now we will see if people actually wanted to do that or were bamboozled again, which is business as usual.

No, actually we don't know that...only those looking through Dem-colored glasses do. The reality is that the Dems weren't interested in any compromise until it became apparent that their own side was unwilling to go along. The Republicans would have been the same way in the same situation. What has led to the situation has, in fact, been the fact that the Dems didn't compromise--if they had, the Republicans wouldn't have gained the momentum they did. This is a lesson the Dems would do well to learn, lest it be repeated again in two years.

QUOTE

Oh yes, and a government shutdown. Get ready all those who receive benefits but are either unaware of it or refuse to admit it. The Republicans are about to school you in the realities of economics (rich get richer, you get screwed).

This would probably end up being a mistake, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is the card they play. Politicians like to assume they have massive mandates that they don't really have, and they overplay their cards. I think that is what caused the backlash this year, and it will happen again if the Republicans also overplay their hand.

As for the rich get richer, you get screwed---do you really think the Dems are any different? If so, I would say you are sadly taken in by their rhetoric--all politicians cater to those in power, the only difference is how they spin it. But, that's how they work--they tell you how bad the other side is to cover up the fact that they're just the same.

QUOTE(nighttimer)

What will the Blue Dogs do?

Well, one thing they'll do is hold their meetings in a smaller room. Almost half of their members lost

.

A fair point...but that puts them ahead of the success rate of their peers who weren't Blue Dogs. It's a tough political issue for them. Clearly the momentum is currently with the Republicans now, but if they go along with that they'll lose some of the support of their base. How much? That's the line they'll have to determine.

As for the rich get richer, you get screwed---do you really think the Dems are any different? If so, I would say you are sadly taken in by their rhetoric--all politicians cater to those in power, the only difference is how they spin it. But, that's how they work--they tell you how bad the other side is to cover up the fact that they're just the same.

That is false equivalency if ever I've read it. Dems do cooperate with corporations to some extent, but they are on the opposite side that Republicans are. Take a real look at the policies each party proposes to put forward and think about who stands to benefit. You can't be so cynical that you believe it's all lies.

The Republicans oppose the repeal of the tax cuts for the richest Americans, while Democrats want to extend the tax cuts only for incomes lower than $200,000. Who do you think is for the interests of the most powerful?

So, given the history of mid-term elections, is this business as usual for a mid-term or a revolution the right wing predicted, or even a mandate?

This is business as usual on a larger scale.

'We the People' got what we voted for, and now we get to live with it. Instead of government programs to help people in trouble, it's gonna be "You're on your own, Bubba" as the Republican victors strive to bring government spending under control. It took a Democratic adminstration before they decided they wanted to do that, but here we are.

Now we'll see how their rhetoric matches their actions, if at all. But if Mitch McConnell's directive to make Barack Obama a one-term President holds sway, there are going to be a lot of people who will be experiencing discomfort because they thought Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress's 2 years weren't good enough and they decided to stay home.

... The reality is that the Dems weren't interested in any compromise until it became apparent that their own side was unwilling to go along. ......

Indeed.

In the case of HCR, for example, the "Outrageous! The Republicans refuse to compromise! They have no ideas! They don't care about taking food out of the mouths of babes!" narrative was sheer political theater. What the Dems were really outraged about is that the Republicans refused to provide any "Yea" votes, which would have allowed a handful (a dozen?) Dems in purple/conservative districts/states (e.g. Nelson, Landrieu, etc.) to vote "Nay" and thus improve their re-election chances in November. IOW, it was outrage of the "How dare you not sacrifice any of your members so that some of ours can survive??!!??" kind. The Republicans, thankfully, didn't fall for it.

QUOTE(pheeler @ Nov 4 2010, 04:06 PM)

...The Republicans oppose the repeal of the tax cuts for the richest Americans, while Democrats want to extend the tax cuts only for incomes lower than $200,000. Who do you think is for the interests of the most powerful?

The Republicans don't want ANYONE's taxes to go up. Neither the taxes for those who need jobs, nor the taxes for those who are the likeliest to provide them. Who do you think is for the interests of ALL Americans?

The Republicans don't want ANYONE's taxes to go up. Neither the taxes for those who need jobs, nor the taxes for those who are the likeliest to provide them. Who do you think is for the interests of ALL Americans?

The economy is supposedly fine, the richest of the rich are making money again. Where are the jobs?

The economy is supposedly fine, the richest of the rich are making money again. Where are the jobs?

Good point. When the richer Americans garner more pre-tax dollars, there's no guarantee that they will either be in a position to, or have the desire to create jobs. Jobs are created when the demand for manufacturing and services exists...meaning consumers must have money to spend.

I think we are overtaxed in general, but if taxes are going to be cut in order to stimulate the economy, those cuts need to be targeted at those who spend money to create the demand.

The Republicans don't want ANYONE's taxes to go up. Neither the taxes for those who need jobs, nor the taxes for those who are the likeliest to provide them. Who do you think is for the interests of ALL Americans?

The economy is supposedly fine, the richest of the rich are making money again. Where are the jobs?

The job providers (enterpreneurs, small to large businesses) have been sitting on the sidelines, awaiting the results of the election. Now they're waiting to see what the Dems and the President might manage to get up to during the Congressional lame duck session. But mostly, they're waiting for January 1, when they'll FINALLY know whether and/or whose taxes will go up.

If all goes really well (i.e. if nothing goofy and business-unfriendly happens in Congress, and if NONE of the taxes go up), I suspect we'll start seeing an acceleration in the job growth rate by the end of the first quarter. Under such a scenario, an unemployment rate under 9 percent by June, and under 8.5 percent by the end of 2011, wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Barring any surprises, of course. Such as, ...

Yesterday's "quantitative easing" announcement by the Fed (after repeated assurances to the contrary), which is a bit worrisome. The weaker our dollar gets, the harder it is for our importers to keep their employees, let alone hire new ones. And prices of imported goods will go up. And, since so much of what we all buy is imported, we all will be buying fewer things, and thus the places where we buy things will find it harder to keep their employees, let alone hire new ones.

The Republicans don't want ANYONE's taxes to go up. Neither the taxes for those who need jobs, nor the taxes for those who are the likeliest to provide them. Who do you think is for the interests of ALL Americans?

Not Republicans, that's for sure.

If you're a woman who's been raped and impregnated the Republicans are not for you.

If you're upset because you're out of work because your company sent it overseas and got a tax break for doing so the Republicans are not for you.

If you're gay and want to serve your country in the military without being persecuted the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't believe building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and forcing Latinos to be stopped and show their credentials is the way to solve our immigration problems, the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't blame all Muslims for the actions of a radical few, the Republicans are not for you.

If you're a minority and you've been denied a job, or housing, or a seat at a lunch counter, Rand Paul and the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't have health coverage because the insurance company denied it due to your preexisting condition the Republicans are not for you.

If you're old and hoping to start collecting Social Security before its privatized and turned over to Wall Street fat cats to play with the Republicans are not for you.

If you believe it's a good thing there's a separation between church and state the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't agree "drill baby, drill" is a sound environmental policy the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't want to see American soldiers fighting and dying for oil in the Middle East the Republicans are not for you.

If you're a critically thinking citizen who doesn't take what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh says as the gospel truth and don't melt in sheer ecstasy at the sight of Sarah Palin, the Republicans are DEFINITELY not for you.

Strangely enough, I'm perfectly fine with the Republicans not being for me because I'm not for them either.

The Republicans don't want ANYONE's taxes to go up. Neither the taxes for those who need jobs, nor the taxes for those who are the likeliest to provide them. Who do you think is for the interests of ALL Americans?

Not Republicans, that's for sure.

If you're a woman who's been raped and impregnated the Republicans are not for you.

If you're upset because you're out of work because your company sent it overseas and got a tax break for doing so the Republicans are not for you.

If you're gay and want to serve your country in the military without being persecuted the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't believe building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and forcing Latinos to be stopped and show their credentials is the way to solve our immigration problems, the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't blame all Muslims for the actions of a radical few, the Republicans are not for you.

If you're a minority and you've been denied a job, or housing, or a seat at a lunch counter, Rand Paul and the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't have health coverage because the insurance company denied it due to your preexisting condition the Republicans are not for you.

If you're old and hoping to start collecting Social Security before its privatized and turned over to Wall Street fat cats to play with the Republicans are not for you.

If you believe it's a good thing there's a separation between church and state the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't agree "drill baby, drill" is a sound environmental policy the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't want to see American soldiers fighting and dying for oil in the Middle East the Republicans are not for you.

If you're a critically thinking citizen who doesn't take what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh says as the gospel truth and don't melt in sheer ecstasy at the sight of Sarah Palin, the Republicans are DEFINITELY not for you.

Strangely enough, I'm perfectly fine with the Republicans not being for me because I'm not for them either.

Is that your summary of the Pledge to America?

Not all Republicans are for all the things you accuse them of. When you exaggerate and make sweeping generalizations, you undermine your own argument.

The Republicans don't want ANYONE's taxes to go up. Neither the taxes for those who need jobs, nor the taxes for those who are the likeliest to provide them. Who do you think is for the interests of ALL Americans?

Not Republicans, that's for sure.

If you're a woman who's been raped and impregnated the Republicans are not for you.

If you're upset because you're out of work because your company sent it overseas and got a tax break for doing so the Republicans are not for you.

If you're gay and want to serve your country in the military without being persecuted the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't believe building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and forcing Latinos to be stopped and show their credentials is the way to solve our immigration problems, the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't blame all Muslims for the actions of a radical few, the Republicans are not for you.

If you're a minority and you've been denied a job, or housing, or a seat at a lunch counter, Rand Paul and the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't have health coverage because the insurance company denied it due to your preexisting condition the Republicans are not for you.

If you're old and hoping to start collecting Social Security before its privatized and turned over to Wall Street fat cats to play with the Republicans are not for you.

If you believe it's a good thing there's a separation between church and state the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't agree "drill baby, drill" is a sound environmental policy the Republicans are not for you.

If you don't want to see American soldiers fighting and dying for oil in the Middle East the Republicans are not for you.

If you're a critically thinking citizen who doesn't take what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh says as the gospel truth and don't melt in sheer ecstasy at the sight of Sarah Palin, the Republicans are DEFINITELY not for you.

Strangely enough, I'm perfectly fine with the Republicans not being for me because I'm not for them either.

Dagnabbit!

Why do people always, always, ALWAYS forget to include in the above list (and lists like it) the additional "fact" that, if you don't think that kittens gettin' bonsai-ed and puppies gettin' hot-dogged are just about the funnest ways to spend an afternoon on any day of the week that ends with "y", the Rethuglicans/Repuglicans are DEFINITELY not only not for you but actively out to git you?

What in the world does it take for that message to get through? Is it really that complicated?

Well, the dems kep the Senate, repubs got the house. Every candidate that was closely aligned with Sarah Palin went on to defeat- Fiorna, Whitman, Miller, O'Donnel and Angle. Candidates that distanced themselves from the tea party or at least did thier best to not make any unscripted public appearences (Rand Paul in this case)

So, given the history of mid-term elections, is this business as usual for a mid-term or a revolution the right wing predicted, or even a mandate?

First off, I note that there's no clear definition of "revolution" in the above proposal and on election night as well as by the words of Speaker-to-be John Boehner, it did not sound like anyone was in a triuphalist or revolutionary mood. No one I've spoken to seems eager to assert the House or congress is a means for ruling the country a la Newt Gingrich. But by the same token, it wasn't a "typical midterm" because under those auspices, the GOP should have taken something between 25 to 30 seats. Instead, we're at historic margins. This was a rebuke of the Democrats and the Obama agenda.

While a rebuke at the polls may make people like me happy, I have zero illusions about what we face now. With Obama still in the high 40s and his recent bizzare answers about people "not feeling" the progress or somehow after all this time a sudden inability to comminucate on his part will convince him only that he simply hasn't tried hard enough, I am fully prepared for gridlock b/c in essence, it is what I voted for. The president will be back at it and I find the people for whom I voted to be up to the task to face him.

As for the Tea Party, while they had their fair share of train wrecks in Senate races, they did fairly well in the House. I eagerly look forward to their joining with the Young Guns in the House leadership and learning best how to make headway, despite if "headway" means you have to take a drubbing here and there. I admire their determination and above all, that they want to remain engaged and from this recent election, I imagine we'll have a fresh new batch of well-trained, highly motivated campaign professionals in the party.

Let me offer an additional (to the one I offered in my previous post) answer to the question:

QUOTE(pheeler @ Nov 4 2010, 05:12 PM)

...... Where are the jobs?

Short answer:In Texas.

Longer answer:

QUOTE

...Texas created more than half the jobs in the nation over the last year, according to a report released Thursday [October 28, 2010].

In the monthly review of the Texas economy for October, Ali Anari and Mark Dotzour of the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University reported that the state added 166,000 jobs during the year ending in September for an annual growth rate of 1.6 percent.

During the same period, the U.S. economy gained 321,000 jobs, an annual growth rate of 0.2 percent....Every metro area in Texas except Lubbock had more jobs in September 2010 than in September 2009....

As I was writing this post (especially the last bit), the famous ole Davy Crockett quote sprung to mind:

"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas."

LOL. The more things "change", ...

QUOTE(DCjumper @ Nov 4 2010, 09:22 PM)

...As for the Tea Party, while they had their fair share of train wrecks in Senate races, they did fairly well in the House. I eagerly look forward to their joining with the Young Guns in the House leadership and learning best how to make headway, despite if "headway" means you have to take a drubbing here and there. I admire their determination and above all, that they want to remain engaged and from this recent election, I imagine we'll have a fresh new batch of well-trained, highly motivated campaign professionals in the party.

Yup.

To wit (bolding mine, both above and below):

QUOTE

...One of the most important results of Tuesday's election occurred below the governor, Senate, and House lines on the ballot. The Republicans overwhelmed the Democrats in state legislative races all across the country, picking up more than 500 [ed. note: 680+ at last count] seats and flipping a dozen and a half legislative chambers....This is a hugely important advance for the Republican Party. For two reasons. First, state legislatures are like the minor leagues of baseball. In future years, these gains will yield a new crop of Republican recruits for the House, the Senate, and maybe even the White House itself....

Every candidate that was closely aligned with Sarah Palin went on to defeat- Fiorna, Whitman, Miller, O'Donnel and Angle.

Don't you think this might be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? Whitman and Fiorina weren't closely aligned with Palin, all Fiorina got was one endorsement and didn't appear publicly with Palin, Miller lost because Murkowski split the vote, and O'Donnell lost because of past contreversial statements and a bad campaign. Sharon Angle is really the only person who might fit the description.

QUOTE("CruisingRam")

So, given the history of mid-term elections, is this business as usual for a mid-term or a revolution the right wing predicted, or even a mandate?

It's not a revolution, but it's certainly a referendum on the Democratic policy and leadership. If the American people were happy with what Obama, Reid and Pelosi had accomplished one would expect them to keep the majorities in both houses.

QUOTE("nighttimer")

If you're a woman who's been raped and impregnated the Republicans are not for you.

You're begging the question if you assume all raped, impregnated women want an abortion.

QUOTE("nighttimer")

]If you're upset because you're out of work because your company sent it overseas and got a tax break for doing so the Republicans are not for you.

And if you want to think through, and thoroughly debate legislation and figure out how to pay for unemployment benefits without adding to the deficit, the republicans are for you, as demonstrated by Jim Bunning.

QUOTE("nighttimer")

If you're gay and want to serve your country in the military without being persecuted the Republicans are not for you.

Come now, this isn't quite honest. The Republicans don't "persecute" gays who want to be in the military, they simply ask them to keep their sexual preferences private. I admit that that specific policy needs some sort of reformation, but it's no where near "persecution."

QUOTE("nighttimer")

If you don't believe building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and forcing Latinos to be stopped and show their credentials is the way to solve our immigration problems, the Republicans are not for you.

Well, I do believe in building some type of structure between Mexico and America to better secure the border, as do many other Americans. But again, you're being quite dishonest when you say "Forcing Latinos to be stopped and show their credentials." Did SB 1070 directly target those of Hispanic descent and does it force them to show their paperwork?

QUOTE("nighttimer")

If you don't blame all Muslims for the actions of a radical few, the Republicans are not for you.

Which republicans say this? I'm a republican, and I recognize that their exists a moderate sect of Muslims that stand with Americans aganist terrorism.

QUOTE("nighttimer")

If you don't have health coverage because the insurance company denied it due to your preexisting condition the Republicans are not for you.

That would be a hasty generalization. Republicans being opposed to Obamacare does not mean that they do not support coverage for pre-existing conditions.

QUOTE("nighttimer")

If you're old and hoping to start collecting Social Security before its privatized and turned over to Wall Street fat cats to play with the Republicans are not for you.

As of now, I believe Social Security is bankrupt. You haven't shown that a governemnt owned Social Security system is more effective then a privatized one.

QUOTE("nighttimer")

If you believe it's a good thing there's a separation between church and state the Republicans are not for you.

Yes, some radical right wingers want to abolish this statute. But aren't you smearing the entire party by going off the views of a small, fringe sect? That was something you seemed opposed to when it came to Islam.

QUOTE("nighttimer")

If you don't want to see American soldiers fighting and dying for oil in the Middle East the Republicans are not for you.

Can you prove that our military campaigns in the Middle East are based on the objective of securing Oil?

QUOTE("nighttimer")

If you're a critically thinking citizen who doesn't take what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh says as the gospel truth and don't melt in sheer ecstasy at the sight of Sarah Palin, the Republicans are DEFINITELY not for you.

You do realize that their are liberal radio talk show hosts and liberal media networks as well, yes? Do you take issue with them as well?

QUOTE("nighttimer")

Strangely enough, I'm perfectly fine with the Republicans not being for me because I'm not for them either.

In my opinion, I think you offered up a list of spurious claims with no factual support.

As for the rich get richer, you get screwed---do you really think the Dems are any different? If so, I would say you are sadly taken in by their rhetoric--all politicians cater to those in power, the only difference is how they spin it. But, that's how they work--they tell you how bad the other side is to cover up the fact that they're just the same.

That is false equivalency if ever I've read it. Dems do cooperate with corporations to some extent, but they are on the opposite side that Republicans are. Take a real look at the policies each party proposes to put forward and think about who stands to benefit. You can't be so cynical that you believe it's all lies.

The Republicans oppose the repeal of the tax cuts for the richest Americans, while Democrats want to extend the tax cuts only for incomes lower than $200,000. Who do you think is for the interests of the most powerful?

Actually, I can. And politicians prove me right almost constantly. The line about 'How do you tell a politician is lying? When his lips are moving' ring a bell? You wouldn't hear things like that if there wasn't a lot of truth to them. Not lies so much (they're too smart for that, usually) but half truths which paint a very misleading picture geared to what they think their audience wants to hear...which is the same thing, but with the ability to weasle out of it whenever they're called on it. I haven't really heard a politician tell it like it is in a couple of decades. It's just not what politicians do. They tell people what they want to hear--that's how they get elected.

As for the tax cuts, class warfare goes both ways. Why is it that the Dems cast this as the 'Tax Cut for the Rich' (despite the fact that it was a uniform across the board cut), yet now want to extend it for the middle class. Ironic, given that their prior mantra indicates the middle class wasn't included in the first place, no?

As for who benefits, that is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be. You can give tax cuts to the rich, who then invest and create jobs for the middle class, or you can give tax cuts to the middle class, who then spend and make money for the rich. Essentially, if you take away the kool aid, they're both different paths to the same result, just packaged differently.

As for the powerful...if you truly believe the Dems don't cater to the powerful, well, you don't get elected by catering to the weak, now, do you? Politics is the same no matter who is practicing it...the Dems have just packaged theirs up differently. Let me ask you this--how do you think a one-term Senator with no legislative successes got selected to run for President? You don't think the powers that be behind the scenes didn't have anything to do with that? Really? Think about it. Much of what transpires in America is still controlled by the rich and powerful, sitting in backrooms, arranging things for their benefit. Its what people in power do.

Why bring up corporations? That's just repeating the spin. Corporations are not 'the enemy'. Would you rather they all went away, leaving all their workers jobless? Again...two different paths to the same end. It really makes no practical difference whether you help the corporations, who then hire more workers, or help the workers, who then spend more, helping the corporations. Either way, both get helped. The only difference is the spin put on it. I tend to agree with DTOM's stance on this, but as far as who benefits from either stance, that is mostly about politics and perception, not reality.

Not all Republicans are for all the things you accuse them of. When you exaggerate and make sweeping generalizations, you undermine your own argument.

Not when all you've offered as a counter-argument is a one-liner. Wheh you make a little more effort to put the lie to anything I wrote, you'll have supported your own argument.

If you're not going to bring your "A" game, pheeler, don't play on the big kids side of the court.

QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 4 2010, 08:40 PM)

Why do people always, always, ALWAYS forget to include in the above list (and lists like it) the additional "fact" that, if you don't think that kittens gettin' bonsai-ed and puppies gettin' hot-dogged are just about the funnest ways to spend an afternoon on any day of the week that ends with "y", the Rethuglicans/Repuglicans are DEFINITELY not only not for you but actively out to git you?

What in the world does it take for that message to get through? Is it really that complicated?

Aaaargh! ... and/or ... sheesh! ... and/or ... sigh.

Nope. What's complicated---no, strike that---what's IMPOSSIBLE is to believe anyone could be so naive as to suggest Republicans are for the interests of ALL Americans without having smoked too much hippie lettuce and pounded too many Coors Lights before typing such an absurd sentence.

If by all Americans you mean corporations and rich people who don't want to pay taxes, you are absolutely right. If you mean anybody else, you are completely wrong.

QUOTE(WinePusher @ Nov 5 2010, 01:40 AM)

In my opinion, I think you offered up a list of spurious claims with no factual support.

Take it up with akaCG. He's the guy who said Republicans look out for the interests of ALL Americans. Why not ask him for HIS factual support?

So, given the history of mid-term elections, is this business as usual for a mid-term or a revolution the right wing predicted, or even a mandate?

I think the mandate is "don't bother us with reality." It can be summed up in the cry "I don't want government messing with my Medicare." Maybe Rand will give it a touch of reality with a call to go back on the gold standard.

BTW: Do you have any hard statistics to indicate what percentage of women want to have a child conceived via rape or incest? I'm interested in seeing stats from something other than a right-to-life group, so don't give me that crapola. Note: This is just a point of interest. Regardless of what percentage of women who choose to bear the child, people like Paul do not have the right to thwart those who do not choose this option. Rights do not require unanimous participation to be rights.

BTW: Do you have any hard statistics to indicate what percentage of women want to have a child conceived via rape or incest? I'm interested in seeing stats from something other than a right-to-life group, so don't give me that crapola. Note: This is just a point of interest. Regardless of what percentage of women who choose to bear the child, people like Paul do not have the right to thwart those who do not choose this option. Rights do not require unanimous participation to be rights.

Is this what we've sunk to? If it is any indication that we can answer the question:

So, given the history of mid-term elections, is this business as usual for a mid-term or a revolution the right wing predicted, or even a mandate?

This election was an important one. The choices that the American electorate made in not only the US House and Senate but also the state governor's mansions and statehouses has reinvigorated the Republican party and the Conservative movement in general.

Some of the responses in this thread and others indicate that the future will be full of even more partisan bickering than that of the last two years.

Few people care what one Senator put on some questionnaire. We should all be concerned how that Senator votes in Washington and what he's said he will do. I don't recall Rand Paul (or anybody else) saying that his first order of business is (somehow) overturning Roe v. Wade. Bringing it up is a red herring. Saying the Republicans are pro war is simply false. Our Democratic in Chief has not ended any wars, has not closed any detainee camps. The President has not done away with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The President is not for gay marriage.

The Republicans did not run on impeaching the President.

Let's talk about what the Republicans did get elected to do: repeal Obama Care, keep taxes low by extending the current tax structure, stop Cap and Trade from taking effect and quit spending money we don't have. Let's stop talking about hypotheticals or issues that have only a razor thin difference between the Parties.